Your package bfast failed to build from source in current rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12807655 For details on mass rebuild see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild
Created attachment 1124105 [details] build.log
Created attachment 1124106 [details] root.log
Created attachment 1124107 [details] state.log
Created attachment 1128409 [details] Patch to fix the FTBFS Trigger of this FTFBS is this package is still relying on gnu89-inlining. As this feature change was added to GCC-5, I wonder why this wasn't caught during the gcc-5 mass-rebuilt and didn't trigger an F23FTBFS. I assume it actually triggered an F23FTBFS (f23 still ships an f22 package), but the related BZ (RHBZ#1239386) seemingly was prematurely closed. Anyway, the patch from the attachment should fix this issue and more related issues this package has and bring it back on track. Unless somebody objects, I will apply this patch to rawhide and f23 in near future.
verdurin's bfast-0.7.0a-14.fc24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=736899
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle. Changing version to '24'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase
Shouldn't that be: "CFLAGS=%optflags -fgnu89-inline" %configure
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #7) > "CFLAGS=%optflags -fgnu89-inline" > %configure Well, it should not matter. In %build, modern rpm first exports CFLAGS, which is where it later is picked up by %configure: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.e1SA4N + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd bfast-0.7.0a + CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/r + export CFLAGS ... + ./configure ... ... But you are right, %optflags would have been an alternative. @verdurin: Provided you applied this patch and rebuilt this package, please assign this BZ to you and close this BZ.
Why wasn't this BZ closed? Closing